THE CONSERVATIVE HIPSTERS

I am an advocate of free trade. However (and this may be my socialist leanings showing through :-) I find myself more and more leaning toward the "fair trade" argument.

If we accept that free trade is a good thing (and I do) because it let's the most efficient bring their goods to market. It allows countries to specialize in a global market place and enables them to bring goods they need into their country. It opens up markets and makes good less expensive.

Where it falls down is when environmental and labour laws are not on equal footing and the cost of living differential is significant, the adoption of free trade essentially becomes a tax on the citizenry of the richer country.

The labour and environmental protections we put in place serve as a disincentive for our people to manufacture or grow products in our own country.

With all that said, I am not upset that the wto talks are collapsing. I think that these sorts of multi-lateral treaties do nothing but set up mechanisms to transfer wealth from the rich to poor.

I think it is in Canada's best interest to explore free trade agreements on a one to one or regional basis.

Q

It has been reported that the government ran a deficit in the first two months of the year.

While strong fiscal conservatives like myself cringe when we hear this news, it is not, in itself, earth shattering.

The beginning of the year is usually when the lion's share of the spending is sent out, and we haven't seen all the revenue for the year.

We are expecting a 3 Billion surplus this year and until we have 6 months of numbers in, it is impossible to estimate exactly where we stand.

My concern now is that this news will be used by those who should know better to incite the ignorant masses.

Q

Besides the whole incarceration/not seeing my family thing.

Peep the Shawshank Redemption line: "We can do this the easy way or the hard way."

This is the last of the series, at least for now.

This time, I will ask a question (well two questions, actually) that I know the answer to. But I think its something the media (or more importantly Party members) may want to ask John Tory.

Here goes:

1. Hey John - did you recently ask a PC MPP to vacate their seat so you could run in a by-election to get back in the Legislature?

2. So, what was the answer?

Actually, dear CH readers, I think you know the answer to both questions.

Again, not good.

Another little birdie in the bowels of Queen's Park sent me the following e-mail, which was apparently forwarded to all PC Queen's Park and Constit Offices - in error. The author is no stranger to PC folk - but I will only use her first name, because if you don't know her you really don't know the Party.

Needless to say she was a fixture at Queen's Park and a tireless worker. It says a LOT that she couldn't hack it in the new environment. And what it says is all bad. Not sure why her replacement forwarded it in the first place, but whatever. Let's take a look-see:


From: XXXXXXXX, Joyce
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:48 AM
To: 2 Constituency Offices
Subject: FW: regards

________________________________

From: XXXXXX.XXXXXX@rogers.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:46 AM
To: XXXXXXXX, Joyce
Subject: regards

Dear members and staff

I am so sorry I didn't call before I left PC Caucus with an explanation, but I was very depressed with the all situation. I just want you all to know that I will miss you all and that I loved working with all of you very much, I loved what I did with all my heart. I am home for now but I want you to Know if any of you needs any help at the QP office for a day or so, I am more then happy to come and help, voluntarily. I just could not stay working with this new people they are to full of .....sorry for my french.

Please call anytime @XXX-XXX-XXXX or write to Filomena [Address deleted - ed.]

E-mail: XXXXXX.XXXXXX@rogers.com ( husband's name)

LOVE you all

Oh my. Now, there is definitely a part of me that is posting this because I'm a sh*t disturber. But a much larger part of me loves the Party and its members and I want to see a PC government in power again.

I also believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant. If there is a problem within the Party, and it sure does seem like there is, we do not gain anything by hiding it. Best deal with it directly. I used to really shy away from "airing dirty laundry" in public, but I'm not sure anyone within the Party is willing to a) admit things are not good at the moment and b) do anything to change it.

Now, if anyone would like to share "another side" of the story, I am happy to post it.

So, it appears that tall things are not well within the PC Caucus as the spring session of the Legislature was ending. A little birdie peeped me to something that was never covered by the media.

The province's useless pesticide ban, also known as Bill 64, was going through the Legislative Assembly on its way to being passed, courtesy of a Liberal majority. According to my sources, PC Leader John Tory told his caucus it was a whipped vote. He told his MPPs if you can't vote against this bill, take a walk. Fair enough.

So what happened? Three of the 14 Tory MPP's - Jerry Ouellette, Christine Elliott and Joyce Savoline voted WITH the government in favour of the bill banning pesticides. All HERE in black and white.

Uh, this isn't good.

That's fine if it was a free vote, but a whipped vote is a whipped vote. That's the deal when you're a member of a caucus. Its the cornerstone of party politics in Canada - if you don't have a caucus you have no power.

I'm not sure who is more at fault: Tory or the three MPPs. On the one hand, you can't choose which vote you want to go with on an issue-by-issue basis. If so, you might as well be an independent. On the other, how weak is Tory that this is happening in the first place? Can you imagine this happening with Harris? Or even *cringe* Ernie Eves?

What the heck is going on at Queen's Park?

More bad news coming soon....

From today's National Post:

[Dion] announced a renewable energy initiative and other plans, but the green shift is "the first time that we have something that is helping people to pay attention to what the Liberals have to propose."

I'm pretty sure that's a direct quote.

If its that hard to say "We have a policy Canadians are interested in" how exactly are you going to sell something as complicated as the carbon tax?

Yeah, yeah, English isn't his first language, blah de blah blah. This is for the leadership of the country. He chose to make environmental policy the cornerstone of his Party's platform.

Good luck, professor.

It seems to me that

A) If the goal of the Carbon Tax is to reduce emmissions; and

B) If the amount the Carbon Tax generates is offset by income tax cuts; and

C) If the Carbon Tax is successful and cuts emmissions, then

I assume the Liberals are going to either

1) Increase personal income taxes later on or;

2) Run a deficit when emissions have been cut

Doesn't seem like they are being either

i) Honest or
ii) Fiscally responsible

While I don't agree with the Carbon Tax, I think it would be more effective and thus reduce emissions if there were no corresponding offsets to income tax.

Seems to me there is an attack ad in here somewhere?

Q